Nazis are commies and commies are progressives

As you probably know if you read this blog and others like it, the overthrow of the Ukrainian government by Soros et al was a Jewish/State Department conspiracy. Maidan’s primary documents are in English, in the dialect of the America Harvard educated ruling class, like so many other similar movements all over the world. The Ukrainian secession movement was and is a response to this foreign created coup installed government.

So, which side do you think the Nazis would support?

Ara Maxima has a nice rant on these pinko progressive nazis here and here. Nazis for the Jewish conspiracy, because loving America, they naturally love the State Department.

As Orwell said, anyone who thinks there is a big difference between Nazis and commies is in favor of one or the other. And, it would seem, sometimes both.

It is always possible to argue that we should support side X because side Y is too far leftist, overlooking the fact that everyone today is leftist by the standards of yesterday, and everyone yesterday is leftist by the standards of the day before yesterday, but if you want to find a genuine reactionary, a Russian who wants to restore the Tsar and Greek Russian Orthodoxy under the Tsar, that man is or recently was fighting for the independence of Russians in the breakaway republics of the Ukraine.

On one side, who started this war?

George Soros, progressive atheist anti zionist Jew.

On the other side, who kept this war going when it would have ended with only the Crimea detached?

Igor Ivanovich Strelkov, Tsarist and theocrat.

So which side are you going to support. The side of George Soros, or the side of Igor Ivanovich Strelkov?

Are you going to support the side sponsored by the State Department, or the side whose soldiers sing “O righteous God” – the anthem sung today by the rebels on the battlefields of eastern Ukraine. was born nearly 100 years ago during the Russian Civil War, sung by the soldiers of Gen Mikhail Drozdovsky, a White Guard commander.

National Socialists are Socialists.

The reason George Soros supports Nazis in the Ukraine is that he does not give a shit about Jews, but does care about socialism.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 6th, 2015 at 06:02 and is filed under politics, war. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Americans (I assume you’re American) are too hung up on words, the definitions of which change regularly. Ukrainian skinheads aren’t the same thing as the men who comprised the Hitler government, however much they wish they were. Anyone who understands what Hitler was for and against knows that the Jewish-led ‘revolutions’ are things he warned about and fought against.

Long live Novorussia and Russia, regardless of their also clinging to past meanings and reprocessed propaganda.

No one doubts Venezuela is socialist, that obamacare is socialist, and it is socialist in exactly the same sense as Nazi Germany was socialist. Wages and prices are controlled, stuff is rationed, all international trade requires international currency dispensed on a case by case basis by the government.

Private ownership does not make capitalism. Private ownership and the freedom to make a deal without the government looking over your shoulder makes capitalism. It is not capitalism when the government decides what the private sector shall do for the people, and pays them to do it.

In the Soviet Union, the government ordered that butter be supplied to the masses at a very low price by state employees, and due to red tape, normal bureaucratic screw ups, and the coordination problem, butter was not supplied.

In Venezuela, the government orders that butter be supplied to the masses at a very low price by the private sector, and pays them to do it. Unfortunately the recipients of this contract are crony capitalists, so they take the money and do not supply the butter. Similarly, Obamacare.

If the government guarantees that everyone shall receive their rightful butter, or their rightful medical treatment, consequences are rather similar.

In 1933 Germany was an economic basket case. By 1939 it was the most prosperous country in Europe., so something about Hitler’s program worked. Certainly better than America’s “New Deal”. Measures taken in the 1940s, like rationing might have had something to do with that war thingy. You know, when international capitalism teamed up with international communism to destroy Germany.

Maybe, but socialist statistics are famously unreliable. I have heard similar tales of the wonderful successes of Ethiopia, Venezuela, Argentina, and North Korea.

During the war everyone remade their economies on the supposedly hugely successful Nazi model. By 1949, it became obvious that this model was not working. In 1939 statistics supposedly proved, and everyone believed, Nazi economics a huge success.

Duh. When you’ve been bombed to smithereens and occupied, it’s true, you probably don’t have much of an economy. What has that to do with socialism?

Australia voted out Nazi style socialism in 1949, and the labor party was so discredited by the results of socialism that it remained in the wilderness for a generation.

The British Labor party, with Greek style socialist famine looming, and the lifts in the treasury building ceasing to work, dumped Nazi style socialism in 1949 in time to avoid the fate of the Australian Labor party..

The Germans, who had the excuse of being bombed, dumped nazi style socialism in the same year.

The Americans ditched socialism a little earlier, on the rationale that peacetime meant the return to normality

Speaking of Venezuela, it is time that whites living in the U.S. beginning looking at it as a super-power in its own right. Sure, it is a basket-case by traditional Western standards (though many Western countries look that way right now, too).

However, as the spiritual and ethnic seat for mestizo and Indian populations the significance of that country cannot be discounted. U.S.’ whites must look more closely to home instead of focus on Mohammedanism growing in Europe. The paganism that the Venezuelans bring is dangerous and obvious connections could be made with the paganism in the Vatican-Roman Church which preceded the browns taking over there.

If I have been too opaque, Venezuela should be seen as the future of the U.S. unless things change. Forget Brasilification. In America, browns being brought in by the hundreds of millions equals Venezuela.

In Brazil, whitish people keep the upper hand by furtive means. In Venezuela, the mestizos and indios took everything – largely because the whites, as in South Africa, gave it to them. Venezuela tells you what happens to whites when whites let inferior people rule them.

In Venezuela, periodic landslides thin out the poor. This “act of God” is facilitated by plains agriculture slash-and-burn practices performed by Campesinos who prefer to live on hillsides. Fast-growing tubers are planted on these now barren hillsides to replace whatever trees or brush that may have been eliminated. The tubers don’t hold either water or soil well. The next big rain pretty well brings the entire hillside down along with all the squatter homes, choking out whatever marine life below that may have sustained itself against the constant flow of raw human sewage.

International charities sob and import more white liberals to blame the peasants’ agricultural disabilities on lack of government grocery dispensaries supplying adequate amounts of nutrition-free commodities.

Venezuela is indeed the future of the U.S., as accountability and initiative are slowly dis-incentivized. However, generations of political duopoly preceding this “socialism” started the process, long ago, just as it did to the U.S.

Both countries incorrectly assume a constant necessity for an excess uneducated and desperate labor force, a lack of need for intelligent actors (since all decisions have already been centralized) except as just that “actors”, and the notion that universal “education” has the ability to flatten social and status hierarchies.

Where Venezuela outperforms the U.S. however is that it’s rough terrain has not been fully civilized or loaded with enough infrastructure to allow for complete totalitarian control. Periodic washing away of roadways allows for an independent, libertarian existence, until the road is slowly, glacially repaired, presuming one has alternative off-road transportation of one’s own available.

I disagree that Venezuela’s problems however are racially-based. Rather, “The Dutch Disease” of not having to establish an effective manufacturing base because there’s enough oil money to import whatever consumer goods China manufactures is to me a more likely culprit. Without manufacturing and craftsmanship, there’s no culture, and without culture, there’s no motivation to excel at anything more than the blithe appearance of being “happy” by means of singing and dancing demonstrations, and fecundity.

Without a sound economy, can neither feed children, nor armies in the field. And without white children, cannot secure a future for white children. Hitler knew he had to reintroduce patriarchy, but did not do so.

The National Socialists over at the Daily Stormer strongly supported Putin. Same for /pol.

In general the ethno-nationalist right was divided on the conflict in the Ukraine, but seemed to mostly support Russia.

The division seemed to come down to those who were ideological ethno-nationalists, adhering to some ridiculous universalistic pan-nationalism that suggests that we need to strongly support the stooges in the Ukraine because they were fighting for nationalism (Greg Johnson, clever silly) and those who were ethno-nationalists for more practical, less ideological reasons.

The practical approach was to simply notice that the Ukrainian Nazis were fighting on behalf of Zionist Neo-cons (read: Jews) and the U.S. government, so there was no way they could possibly be the good guys. And of course, they were not the good guys.

Once again, reflexively opposing the Jews turns out to be the correct play. Once again, ideology proves to be a route for whites to cuckold themselves.

P.S. National Socialist Germany was a mixed economy, just like virtually all actually existing economies. If you’re going to be stuck with a mixed economy, it’s not really clear if it is better to handle it by allowing the government to gain de-facto control through mountains of bullshit, U.S. style or to just make the control formal but limited, China style.

National Socialist Germany did not lose because it was socialist. It lost because it invested too much power in one man and he got it into a war it could not win. NRX lacks a theory for dealing with this way for nations to self destruct. So do I.

National Socialist Germany could not feed those it conquered, nor allow them to feed themselves. That was a basic logistic failure, characteristic of socialism. If Greeks had had enough to eat, would have supported Nazism, or at least cheerfully tolerated it.

This simply is not so. There was food enough for Germans only because the Germans immediately set to stealing everyone else’s food, which is the most basic failure of an economy that one can have, and a failure typical of socialism.

The way the Jews actually prosecuted that war was by stampeding their herds of two-legged cattle from the fertile plains of North America.

During WW1, German soldiers bayonetted Belgian babies for fun and train loads of Allied soldiers were turned into soap. It as only in the ’60s that it was discovered that the Germans were turning six million Jews into soap, in part because the Red Cross inspectors somehow didn’t notice the gas chambers in Auschwitz, but there were other atrocities to motivate the Americans for their final effort to save democracy before democracy consumed them.

There was a bunch of inflection points during the war where Germany’s political leadership failed to achieve victory by actively messing with military maters they didn’t understand. Dunkirk, North Africa, calling off the first attack on Moscow, keeping the Panzers away from the beach heads in Normandy, fight to the last man instead of elastic defense, frontal attacks instead of war of maneuver, ect.

Even during WW2 great military leadership and fighting spirit counted for far more than arms and manpower. This German advantage was squandered at every turn by NS leadership who tried to enforce their own stupid views of war onto the greatest army the world has ever seen.

In World War I, elastic defense was a huge success. In the course of retreating a mile or so, the Germans destroyed the French army and a generation of Frenchmen. If your enemy wants to win so much that he is going for pyrrhic victory, let him have it.

They’re stupid for the way they avoid arguing in favor of constant insults, playing stupid, playing the victim, constant propaganda, ignoring facts and their self-admitted shortcomings after you press them enough.

They didn’t know how aggressively retarded the British were going to be. They were stupider and certainly committed more atrocities than the Nazis in the Ukraine who work for the Jew junta. If the Nazis had known that the British government was going to bomb German cities that didn’t have any military presence in order to force the Germans to bomb British cities in retaliation so that the British public would support the war, the Germans would have done a lot of things differently.

Well, they’re being punished now by having all their little girls sexed up and used as whores by Pakis. Jolly good mate. Pip pip cheerio.

My understanding of that incident is that the Germans were winning the battle of Britain, attriting the British airforce faster than the British were attriting the German airforce. So Churchill bombed German cities to distract the Germans into attacking English cities – and thus failing to attack British airports, aircraft factories, and so forth. Hitler should not have allowed himself to be provoked. Churchill was like a squirrel throwing dust at a snake, so that the snake will strike at the dust instead of at the squirrel.

Support? How does one support this side or that side in a war halfway around the world? Or do you mean “Internet Posturing” (which is the Internet-age meaning of support)? I doubt anyone in this dust-up has tangibly supported either side.

The Soviet Union collapsed in substantial part from posturing. Of course the willingness of people in Soviet puppet countries to posture defiance of the Soviet Union reflected increasing awareness of Soviet lack of the logistic capability to send their troops into puppet countries, but a posturing runaway led to an almost bloodless collapse.

Of course Reaganite would correctly comment that when an empire’s logistic capability is exhausted, that makes for a bloodless collapse, but without posturing, would have been no collapse.

I think he may mean the “moral level” of war, not the physical levels (which include strategy, operations, tactics, logistics). See Lind’s discussion of 4GW, where the moral level is supreme. Hence, argument, posturing, “supporting” actually do play a big part. And USSR certainly lost the moral level to the West, and everyone knew it. Everything else followed.

Hey Jim, since the word ‘socialist’ so gets yer goat, how about this: Are the numerous ‘Christian Democrat’ parties in Europe actually Christian? If so why does the word never parse their lips, let alone its tenets?

Are they even ‘democratic’? Well, yes, but only by the American definition of swamping the citizenry with foreigners to the point that the natives’ votes don’t count. Not by the traditional, or ancient Greek definition, even though they first identified the dead end that is democracy.

I would recommend that you pay more attention to the results on the ground and less to ideological labels.

In short, National ‘socialism’ was the exact opposite of Soviet, or international ‘socialism. Main reason being that the two were heralded by very, very, very different peoples.

I’ve seen this said somewhere, and I remember reading something to that effect that made sense. What I recall is that “capitalism” is a word invented by Marx & Engels. And that the development of communism was a direct result of capitalism. (Was Charles Dickens in reaction to capitalism, which is about the same time as communism arose?)

Do you have a link where this is explained more, or could you elaborate?

I’m continuously amazed at how Americans think of things as if by some orders they received in high school. Is the Republican party actually republican? Is the Democratic pasty actually democratic? Of course not. They are both bought and paid for, but not with votes!

As I said before, are the numerous Christian Democratic parties in Europe actually Christian, or even democratic?

To witness real socialism in action you should look at Scandinavia. Quite prosperous, at least until its US overlord forced millions of non-Europeans on it, just as they are doing in the US itself. Then consider Hitler’s economic miracle of 1933 – 1939. Then consider the disaster of the early decades of the USSR. These three are not even comparable because they all existed under very different circumstances. To dismiss them all as bad because they, to one degree or another utilized WHAT THEY CALLED ‘socialism’, is the analysis of a child!

I am not recommending socialism. I am only trying to demonstrate that things aren’t always what some label hanging on their door make them seem. It’s more important to open the door and study what is actually in the room.

Read the comments by Glenfilthie. Don’t they sound grade schoolish? That’s American education for you. Everything is simple and everybody is taught to react to certain words with the same robotish simplicity.

As for “Socialism is when the government runs the economy. It predictably fucks up.”, how’s that “non-socialist” (by label any way) US economy doing? If I’m not mistaken it’s on the verge of collapse. Most of the wealth has been transferred offshore, just as have the jobs over the past few decades.

“Socialism is when the government runs the economy. It predictably fucks up.” Jim, it depends on the quality of the government, to put it simply.

yes. Why did they let the foreigners in and not have their own children? Is it because of US forcing feminism and anti-racism on them, or is it because that’s the natural result of socialism?

» An easy and superficial answer could be made in terms of con- temporary persons and events. With few and brief exceptions, the empire was ruled by despots who ranged from ruthless pirates to mutton-headed fops, including such figures as the well-read and pious Theodosius II, who professed and probably felt, “Love of man-kind”, but, in the words of the contemporary historian, “lived in cowardice” and was “under the control of his eunuchs in everything … They beguiled him, to put it briefly, as children are beguiled with toys.” One can draw up a long list of battles lost by folly or treason, and ask why supreme command of the greatest naval effort of the century, equipped at a cost that had strained to the utmost the resources of a declining nation, was entrusted to Basiliscus, who appears to have been both a fool and a traitor.
» But even in the first chapter an attentive reader will see a deeper cause as he notices with increasing wonder that most of the prominent figures on the Roman side are not really natives of the Empire. Strike out the names of mercenaries imported from across the border, or superficially naturalized barbarians, and of first- generation Romans: the pages of history are left almost vacant. You cannot read far without confronting the appalling fact that that vast empire is one in which irresponsibility and torpor have become virtually universal; it has a multitudinous population, great cities, a noble culture, a new and elevating religion, wheat, gold, iron… But it has to import the one thing that no nation can really buy – men.
» When the Romans finally destroyed Carthage in 146 BC, they destroyed a powerful nation that had combined a high degree of civilization (in commerce, industry, scientific agriculture, navigation, and politics) with the terrrible religious savagery evident in such institutions as the great bronze machine that was used on ceremonial occasions to shovel living children by the hundreds – including sons and daughters of the Carthaginian aristocracy – into the furnace that burned within the colossal idol of Baal. To the Roman mind, as to ours, the masochistic sadism of the Carthaginians was incomprehensibly alien and horribly inhuman. Yet before long – in less time than has elapsed since our Constitution was ratified – the Romans had set up a socio-political machine that was far more deadly – a machine, adorned with specious phrases and built, in part, with good intentions, for the sacrifice of their own children.
» The machine devoured the Romans – almost all of the great families of the Republic were extinct by the time of Nero. It devoured the other peoples of Italy. It devoured the hardy provincials who had been brought into the imperium Romanum. It devoured whatever was virile and valuable in the descendants of the innumerable slaves that the Romans had recklessly brought into Italy and then set free with indiscriminate generosity. And when the machine had devoured the last manhood of an exhausted world, its work was done – and the empty husk of a dead nation collapsed of its own weight. (America’s Decline, page 218-219, Men and Dinosaurs, December 1961)

You had it right in your second paragraph. Yes, it is because of US forcing feminism and anti-racism on them. Feminism and anti-racism aren’t traditional Scandy things. Why do you think the US has troops in Europe 70 years after the war and 25 years after the fall of the USSR? It’s not called the American Empire for nothing.

Do you believe what you see and read in US media? Do you trust the US government and its leaders?

Scandinavia knows better than to meddle with supply and demand, knows better than to tell businessmen what to do.

Scandinavian “socialism” consists of a whole lot of redistribution – welfarism, not socialism. To get the votes for redistribution, importing an enormous brown underclass, which lives by its votes. Whites males support women and browns, to whom they are subserviant.

Scandinavian white men are emasculated. Almost any interaction by a white male with a woman constitutes rape or sexual assault. So to get the manliness they need, Scandinavian white women visit the brown parts of town from time to time for some beatings, rough sex, and gang banging.

Whites are failing to breed, and in particular and especially white males are failing to breed, because, for the most part, they are failing to get any sex. Alarmingly few newborn children in Scandinavia are white. To keep the welfare state voted in, the white race is being voted out.

And they’re imported to Sweden because the Swedes are full of themselves over the whole Gustavus Adolphus glorious entrance into a war that didn’t have any freshly equipped armies, and then not getting involved in the business of the great powers because no one wants their rocks and snowbanks, and because the glorious history of the Goths that left for the underfloor heating systems and heated baths of the civilized but socialist world. They’re so full of themselves they think thay’re a superpower, at least, a humanitarian superpower, and no one will tell them different, as they grow old and die in their house in the frozen woods with their ever increasing collection of pets.

Jim – the commies/progs and fascist/commies will sit around blaming EEEEEEEEEEVIL JOOOOOOOOOS for everything. Their semitic phantoms and bogeymen will lurk in the backgrounds and shadows where only pasty faced political loons can see them. Pull my other finger Jimmy! It has bells on it!! LOL. Apparently neo-reactionaries will too.

Here’s my theory: Putin is a hard ass and a shrewd opportunist. Obama is a baboon and a weakling and Putin (and pretty much every other carpet bagger in the world) – knows it. The time was right for a land grab.

Euro Commies/progs and Fascist/whatevers never blame THEMSELVES for setting their nations at war and the destruction that follows even as they pull the triggers and push the buttons. You fellas here should know better than that.

Please… I don’t blame the Jews for everything just getting us in to WWI and WWII, the Federal Reserve, killing Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy. The destruction of Germany, Spain, England, US and all of Eastern Europe. The opium trade into China. Bringing slaves to America. Bringing in all the people after the 1965 change in immigration laws and all illegal immigration. Destruction of the school system through uncivil rights for Blacks. Mass murder of Whites by Blacks due to uncivil rights laws. Destruction of competence of government employees by uncivil rights laws banning effective testing. Destruction of the culture by mass media. Police committing widespread murder due to Jews training the police. Corruption of the government by bribery and when that doesn’t work blackmail. Destruction of truth through distortion of the education system and mass media. The lowering of morals through pornography and evil behavior in film and TV. The pushing of communism and socialism. The movement of manufacturing to China. Widespread theft of military secrets and subsequent selling of those to the USSR , China and who knows who else. The banking collapse and subsequent bailout. Blowing up our buildings and killing our people on 9-11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The war in Ukraine. ISIS. The murder of Lebanese and Palestinians. Organ smuggling. Drug smuggling. Lots and lots of business and bank fraud. There’s more but that’s the major ones.

You attribute too much cohesiveness to the Jews. The Jews most responsible for all this bad stuff are the ones who drink of their own poison most deeply – in other words, progressives,Jewish conversos. Jews were not responsible for World War I or II, and it was Roosevelt, who had no love for Jews, that brought America into World War II. He failed to take in Jews fleeing Nazism.

And I don’t see how you can blame the movement of manufacturing to China on Jews.

He’s a bit misguided all right but not for the reasons you suggest. No, the Jews don’t control everything but yes they control things like the US government and media. And they were indeed not necessarily responsible for WWI but they sure as hell were responsible for getting the US into it via the promise of the Balfour declaration. And they certainly did everything in their power to push the US into war with Hitler, including provoking his Japanese ally into an attack.

As for FDR not liking Jews, don’t make me laugh. Take a look at his advisers, for God’s sake. Baruch, Rosenman, Morgenthau, Bloom, Wise, the list goes on and on.

And no, no Jews “fleeing nazism” were turned away. Unless you believe American media.

But then, if your comprehension is only as deep as “Nazis are commies and commies are progressives”, well,…………

I totally agree that Jews did lots of bad things – and I think my prolific Jewish supremacist commentator B would agree that Jews did lots of bad things, though he would say it was all the gentiles fault. The gentiles made Jews do bad things.

But people who obsess over Jews are crazy (unless they are Jewish themselves). You should not obsess over an ethnicity not your own.

In 1940, Joe Kennedy did everything he could to avoid issuing visas to European Jews attempting to flee through France, issuing explicit instructions to the tune that the problem would soon resolve itself.

Of course, the Jews took revenge using their massive influence and the Kennedy clan faded into insignificance. Joe’s dream of a presidency for his son never came true. To this day, the Kennedy name carries with it a stigma in the popular mind, which is controlled by the Jews.

and what Revilo Oliver says about that is WWII only became about saving Jews after the Holocaust became a thing. So if Joe Kennedy tried to keep the Jews that Hitler had been trying to convince to self-deport from Germany out of the US, telling people that they would be able to go to Israel soon, it would have been acceptable before the ’60s and ’70s.

That’s not an interesting factoid regardless of whether or not it’s true. Here’s an interesting factoid. In 1949 Congress considered a bill to recognize as subversive and outlaw the ADL.

It’s obvious WW2 was not about saving the Jews. For instance, the NYT (OWI/FDR’s boys) and Stalin’s propaganda organs both worked very hard to make the Holocaust not much of an issue. FDR, when meeting Jan Karski, who had infiltrated and then escaped Auschwitz, asked him with great concern about how the Polish horses were holding up. You know, the war was very hard on the horses. The Partisan movement in Belorussia, to the extent that it was run from Moscow, got top-down instruction to keep Jews out. Etc.

Back in the day, I more or less perfected the art of mocking idiots to their face in such a way that they suspected they were being made fun of but couldn’t quite admit it to themselves. The key is that for progs to admit that an enthusiastic restatement and mild amplification of their principles with a poker face is hilarious, because it implies that their principles are ludicrous. Like a subdued version of Swift’s Modest Proposal.

Given the choice between agreeing with a ludicrous proposal which is consistent with their principles but goes just half a step too far and questioning those principles, most will hesitantly do the former, and lots of entertainment can be had convincing them to make idiots of themselves. It’s difficult to do online, easier and much more entertaining in person.

The Bolshevisk party was led by Jews. It was financed by Jewish capitalists. Every major leftwing movement of the last century: cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, deconstruction, feminism, civil rights, immigration reform, LGBT liberation, and whiteness studies, have been led by Jewish intellectuals. Keep sticking your head in the sand.

Stalin wasn’t Jewish…and he killed a huge percentage of the Old Bolsheviks, put an ice pick in Trotsky, turned international socialism into socialism in one country, stopped the left singularity and dragged the U.S.S.R. just far enough to the right to allow them to win WW2.

And after Stalin, Soviet Communism became boring grey and depressing under a series of European gentile leaders, but far less murderous and radical than it once was.

Read the Great Terror and keep in mind who he was killing. It’s a red pill moment.

I’ll support neither, there is far too much work to do in this part of the globe to be really concerned about the factions fighting in the backwater of Eastern Europe.

However, it is important to note that President Putin does support, like most European countries do, restrictions on freedom of speech and that barely over twenty years ago Russia was a communist state. Christianity has been promoted recently, but anything beyond standing on the throat of the Church there would appear as pro-Christian in comparison. Russia is pretty far from Christian when compared to the more Christian areas of the United States (not referring to inner-city Cathedral outposts in those parts of the U.S.).

American “Christians” are pro gay, support female headship in marriage, pro divorce, support illegal immigration, and pro single motherhood. If you are opposed to any of these things, and get married in church, the priest will stab you in the back. Russian Orthodox Christianity is considerably more Christian, because allowed by the state to be more Christian.

Russia isn’t a pretty picture, “Jim”, for the reason I mentioned above most likely. I do think that the Russian Church might be a rural and agrarian, so appropriate rump version of catholicism, that is suited as a dividing line between Christendom and steppe paganism…But after so many decades of abuse it’s going to take a while for it to become intrenched in the population (think of Saint Moses and the generational change during the Exodus). That’s if the Russians don’t backslide…

“American Christians are pro gay, support female headship in marriage, pro divorce, support illegal immigration, and pro single motherhood.”

This has more to do with U.S. Christians being white than being Christian, B.T.W….Un-coincidentally Russia rivals the U.S. for these issues, and you can add the highest abortion rate in the world to it. Who is more conservative, the Southern Baptist or the Eastern, Greek Orthodox Christian? Unless I’m not being appropriately objective, the Southern Baptist is far closer to the patriarchal world ideally described in the Book of Sacred Scripture.

Since illegal immigration, or massive third-world immigration in other words, is such a linch-pin issue for positive spirituality, this might be addressed separately…

“In August 2012, as the country saw its first demographic growth since the 1990s, President Putin declared that Russia’s population could reach 146 million by 2025, mainly as a result of immigration.[40]”

,

“The problem has become so severe it has caused a rise in Russian nationalism, and spawned groups like Movement Against Illegal Immigration”

The Russian Orthodox Church opposes abortion and single motherhood. Christian Churches in the west can only oppose abortion by valorizing single motherhood as good and heroic. The proposition that women with children must submit to and obey the father of those children is unthinkable and unspeakable in Western Christianity.

I cannot see any actually existent mainstream church in America that does not support homosexuality, single motherhood, and female headship.

There are doubtless churches where a high proportion of the congregation oppose homosexuality, single motherhood, mass illegal nonwhite immigration, and female headship, but the pastor harangues them from the pulpit on how unchristian they are for opposing all these good Christian things.

Pakistan is full of pedophiles whose favorite food is long pig curry. Afghanistan has that one green-eyed woman whose picture went on Time Magazine to get Americans to care about them. Dagostan has caucasoids who are less white than dagos…

It affects the definition of it, per your understanding. In other words, it is a word that has been used by many different people for many different things. In the early USSR it was used to mask Judeo-bolshevism (as Hitler would describe it). In Hitlerian Germany it was used to win converts from communism. In Scandy it is as normal a term as “democracy” is in the US.

In other words, it is a word so overly used that it came to mean just about anything – and therefore is no guide whatsoever to what policies may ensue henceforth. Think “freedom”, “democracy”, “land of the free and home of the brave”, etc. It’s all nonsense purposely designed to distract you.

Socialism means that the government thinks it can run the economy, and tries to do so. There are a lot of ex socialist parties that still retain socialism in their name, having tried socialism and failed catastrophically, for example the scandinavian socialists, and from time to time they get their raving bloodthirsty moonbats in a room, lock the doors so that the public cannot hear, and talk socialism to them till they come. But, their socialism is to actual socialism what telephone sex is to actual sex.

“Maidan’s primary documents are in English, in the dialect of the America Harvard educated ruling class”

I’ve seen this unsupported assertion in various places, yes. I haven’t seen any actual evidence supporting it. I have also been in contact with more than a few Ukrainians, some of them quite closely connected with Maidan, who would find the idea that they were being manipulated from DC to be laughably insulting. They know what they did, they know how they did it, they know why, and they are perfectly willing to tell you about it if you ask them.

I read this blog, but any given article has about a 50/50 chance of being insightful and interesting, or complete bullshit. The really sad thing is that there seems to be no interest whatsoever in correcting errors or systematic reason. It’s as intuitive and faith-based a course as any mysticism. Any correct statements end up being correct almost by accident.

Oddly, I find that when Jim writes on subjects of which I have no personal knowledge, he’s very insightful. Otherwise…it’s probably one of those quantum physics things where the very act of observation affects the observed.

I’m not sure how, but there’s something about the editorial policy which has led to the comments section being completely filled with nazi froth (perhaps Jim’s hooknosed hasbara handlers are being stingy with the shekels). These people aren’t very threatening because, being 21st century internet americans, they are to real nazis as Gawker is to the Comintern. Still, the place is getting pretty squalid. I note that UR never had these problems.

Unqualified Reservations had lots of anti-Semitic and White Nationalist comments, which is why Moldbug had to write articles commenting on those topics and probably why he ended up ignoring the comments eventually. The comments at UR were notorious as a bit of a cesspool, so you’re being somewhat disingenuous.

If the current comments of blog.jim.com are a bit more extreme, it’s only because the internet Overton window has moved rightward on this issue very rapidly in the intervening years.

Compared to the comments here, the comments on UR were an aristocratic salon. I suspect the difference was the blog author’s tone and originality and willingness to engage in mild censorship, the fact that a lot of UR’s commentariat was composed of the functional and intelligent (who tend to be progs by default but were engaged in varying degrees of apostasy,) and that between now and then, NRx has entered its Eternal September. That is to say, it is stuck in the uncanny valley where it is popular enough to attract masses of ranting tards but by its very nature unable to leverage said masses into any sort of results. I expect a flameout or a pivot in the near future.

Anyone who wants to *do* anything, including scheisspfosten on anderen unterreddits, goes to Radix and DailyStormer. Anyone who wants to random insult people with imagemacros ( http://www.funnyjunk.com/Electric+swede/funny-pictures/5319021/ ) goes to /pol/ and the chans. NRx should be whoever’s left over, but who’s that?

The noreactionaries are either the scholars of the world that the universities have fairly recently decided to reject, having forgotten their mission to co-opt the best talent, shove intelligent niggers and women who act like men in their faces, and tell them to stay out of politics or they get fired; with interesting criticisms that the other right wingers should listen to. Or a bunch of totally irrelevant ranting tards. Well, you will know them by their works.

I’ll never be qualified to comment on the fall of Constantinople. Whoever is will either decide to call himself a neoreactionary or not do so.

No, I only know enough Spanish to order a burrito sin salsa picante and have read maybe three to five books if The Communist Manifesto counts. But there was a time when Revilo Oliver could be a professor of classics. Since that time has passed, we can’t really expect anyone flaunting scholarly credentials to say anything serious. So where can we look for delicious red pills before they get popular enough for Andrew Anglin?

>So where can we look for delicious red pills before they get popular enough for Andrew Anglin?

Perhaps reconsidering your self-education might be a start. Your question presumes a Buzzfeed-style information consumerism. Lose Jews With This One Easy Trick! A Professor Of Classics Looked At The Jews…What He Found Will Shock You! Etc.

Maybe thinking I know something about politics after reading Revilo Oliver and Bob Whitaker is like thinking i know something about physics after reading A Brief History of Time and The Road to Reality, except that Hawking and Penrose are relevant and Oliver and Whitaker aren’t. But, Oliver and Whitaker represent the only serious branch of thought that hasn’t been sullied by application in the last century.

In the past, it was possible to be not racist, like Spengler, but today you can either be racist or anti-racist, and if you’re anti-racist, you’re not racist, QED.

Maybe I should challenge my world-view by reading the best 13th century philosopher’s ideas about souls. That could help me interpret which thoughts I have come from demons, modulo a theory of what a thought is.

On the other hand, I don’t have the time, the training, or the inclination to study this full time. So I’ll just stay curled up in the corner waiting for the next shipment of red pills to come in ready to suck whoever’s dick i need to to get some. Until then, I’ll try to talk about how great it was when everything made sense for a few seconds after I heard that Woodrow Wilson was a Jewish puppet controlled by his dalliances with married women. Well, the next one’s going to be even better.

(but in reality the red pills get more and more bitter, and make the world look progressively worse)

You don’t need to study full time. But spending your spare time reading primary sources with an open mind is much better than waiting for someone to give you a pill. For one, it is developmental, and may give you original thoughts. For another, doing mental heroin has an up front reward which diminishes with time and a hefty payment on the back end.

> the only serious branch of thought that hasn’t been sullied by application in the last century.

That’s not a very good criterion. “If grandma had a dick, she would have been grandpa.” Well, she didn’t have a dick. Revilo Oliver may have some good points, as may E. Michael Jones. They also have craziness mixed in. The ability to read them in the same way as Procopius’ Secret History or Nietzsche or Machiavelli or any other source is crucial. Allowing them to hijack your mind and turn you into an idiot sort of defeats the purpose of reading primary sources. This is the difference between a scholar and a dilettante. A scholar can read primary sources with an open mind and remain detached.

“Notice how quick they are to play down the differences between nationalism and communism. Note how they say that the differences are “cosmetic” or “technicalities” or “surface”.

And then note how they act like really, really superficial things, such as advocacy for a national Orthodox Church, or a contemporary flat-tax, or being against fag marriage, all make certain that the Putinistas are most certainly not communists, and are most certainly right-thinking traditionalists.

They do just like the ancaps – they attempt to sweep the rhetorical rug out from under your feet by invalidating your premises. They do this by arbitrarily redefining (or rather just totally making up) some 2-dimensional political spectrum to be entirely self-serving.

Ancaps hate statism, therefore statism is left wing, and ancaps are the most right wing, and anything they dont like is to the left of them and therefore presumably does not need to be engaged seriously, or at least that’s the message it intends to send to the programmed bleating sheeplike cultists who join political cults that flatter members as both intellectually and morally elite.

I’m not sure exactly what their metric is, but NRx do the same thing, only where their principles of exit from the Cathedral makes them the most right. Anyone who does not want to exit from the Cathedral, or who wants to expand rather than break apart, is therefore a leftist.

That actually makes it all the more insane that self-proclaimed NRx faggots like Antidem and Mark Jewray call themselves the real right wingers according to their made up NRx standards. They are literally defending an expansionist imperial state that is animated by modernist ideology, two things NRx came together in opposition to.

I guess he is interpreting Novorussia as an exit from Ukraine and therefore the left, but it’s obviously disingenuous given how much he defends the Russian annexation of her neighbors and the Russian states history of bolshevism and imperialism. “

really, really superficial things, such as advocacy for a national Orthodox Church, or a contemporary flat-tax, or being against fag marriage

If you think those are really really superficial …

Then you tend to wind up on the same side as George Soros and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, whose distinguishing feature is not so much that they are Jewish, as that they are degenerates.

This is the same as the problem Hitler had with restoring German fertility. He knew, or at least many senior members of the Nazi party knew, what needed to be done, but were unwilling to do it. He could kill millions of Jews, but could not unemancipate women.

The future belongs to those that show up. And if you think that fag marriage is a really really superficial thing, not going to show up.

When this pro-Islamic, multiracial government is the new world power, do you think they will give support to removing kebab in Europe?

No. Russia won’t care if its helots in the newly conquered west, its ancient rival, are a hodgepodge of Muslim muds. It’ll probably be easier for them to maintain their hegemony that way; less chance of European ethnic consciousness getting in the way of their plans again like happened in 1990.

Dugin has explicitly stated that any white racial consciousness is to be opposed. Putin outlawed holocaust denial and throws actual racial nationalists in jail for up to 10 years for “extremist speech” (sound familiar?). Putin in December 2013 gave a speech in which he affirmed that Russia’s state identity is to be based around deracinated, Jacobin-style civic nationalism. He praised Russias multiracialism to the sky, just like Dugin does (see cite #34). Putin right now is totally content with Chechnya being a Sharia state – his concern not being removal of kebab but assertion of his own authority. I guess Islamic Shariah is a kind of tradition, though.

The official religion of Russia is Russian Orthodox. America theoretically does not have an official religion, (actually progressivism is its official religion) but systematically favors Islam above Christianity. Russia systematically favors Russian Orthodox above all competitors.

A state needs an official religion, which official religion should be subject to that state (and not to some other, alien, and possibly hostile, state). It is good that Russia has its own official religion, rather than an official religion controlled by a hostile power, and good that its official religion is Russian Orthodox.

This is one of those cases where Jim is talking about something of which I have some personal knowledge.

Russia’s constitution defines it as a secular government. According to Wikipedia, in 2003 Russia liquidated 225 religious organizations, of which 71 were Orthodox, 42 Muslim, and so on down the line to Baptists and so forth.

the passage of a 1997 national law, restricting certain religious organizations from carrying out missionary work in the Russian Federation, was considered a political victory for the Orthodox Church, whose leadership lobbied the government heavily for the legislation. Additionally, according to Papkova, “the presence of the Russian Orthodox Church was ubiquitous” starting in 1995. The speaker cited images of Orthodox priests blessing new buildings, military installations, and construction sites throughout Russia as examples of the Church’s presence in everyday life. The Patriarch also conferred his blessing on each new president, further highlighting the growing public presence of the Church. …

… This change in leadership led to a growing recognition by the state of the Church’s demands.

What happened was that Russia in the late 1990s was quietly and unofficially moving to make Russian Orthodox Church unofficially official.

The west was alarmed, applied pressure, Russia stopped doing that, or stopped being obvious about doing it.

With the conflict in the Ukraine, Putin less worried about what the west thinks, more worried about spiritual security, more worried about the west weaponizing progressivism against him, therefore back to making the Russian Orthodox Church official.

In his fire-breathing speech to the Duma in March when he announced Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Putin included not just venerable KGB classics like warnings about the Western Fifth Column and “national traitors,” but also paeans to explicit Russian ethnic nationalism buttressed by Orthodox mysticism, with citations of saints from millennia past. This was the culmination of years of increasingly unsubtle hints from Putin and his inner circle that what ideologically motivates this Kremlin is the KGB cult unified with Russian Orthodoxy. Behind the Chekist sword and shield lurks the Third Rome, forming a potent and, to many Russians, plausible worldview.

Putin’s potent fusion of KGB values and Orthodoxy has been building for years,

What drove the holy wars of the seventeenth century was that if your official religion was Roman Catholicism, the Holy Roman Emperor, or equivalently Spain, would use that to screw you.

Similarly, today, if your official religion is progressivism, the US will screw you. If you don’t want the XXX Spring, better find something to substitute for progressivism, fast!

Coming soon to Israel, the peace spring, where the US does to Israeli Jews what it did to white South Africans.

I’m sorry, I forgot you are a prog. When Russia officially says it has no official religion, it is not credible. When progressive sources decry the insufficient separation of church and state in Russia, they are credible. We can only conclude that Russia has an UNOFFICIAL official religion. Very convincing.

I am not very intimidated by a Peace Spring. State has been trying since 1948. Compared to Loy Henderson, I just don’t find Samantha Powers very impressive. The nadir was from Rabin to Gush Katif.

Words are slippery things, but when Russia arms men fighting in the name of theocracy under the state, that is credible.

The Russian government says one thing, and it says a different thing, but what it is actually doing (arming people who fight in the name of Russian Orthodoxy) makes sense if we suppose that when Putin says “spiritual security” he means something not very different from what I mean when I say a state needs an official religion that is not controlled by a different and hostile state.

I am not very intimidated by a Peace Spring. State has been trying since 1948

Jews have not yet experienced the full weight of State Department soft power, hence the entirely correct Nazi complaint that Jews get away with stuff other whites do not. When Jews are the object of the sort of attention received by the Catholic church, Rhodesia, the Mormons, and South Africa, then let me know whether you are intimidated.

The Russians also have Muslim volunteer battalions fighting in the Ukraine. Most of their forces lack any real religious affiliation. I have sat, while in the American military, through a few chaplain speeches heavily informed by low church Protestantism, which failed to impress upon me that I was serving a country whose official religion was Protestantism.

I will be sure to let you know when we are intimidated. Did I mention that BDS efforts to date have failed miserably? That we have rapidly expanding trade partnerships with China and India, decent relations with Russia, a significant portion of the world’s high tech, and oil? If Loy Henderson and co could not do anything major to hungry, poor, socialist, 1950s Israel, I really can’t muster a lot of fear of his modern heirs. Sorry.

The Russians also have Muslim volunteer battalions fighting in the Ukraine

The Dudayev battalion are Soros sponsored Jihadists, accused by the Russians of ISIS affiliation, believed by the Cathedral to be “moderates” like they thought Arab Spring were moderates, fighting against Russian sponsored separatists in the Ukraine. To the extent that the Ukraine is turning into a holy war, the Russians are sponsoring whom you would expect, and the Cathedral are sponsoring whom you would expect. Chechen’s on the Russian side were on the Russian side in chechnya, pretty much anti religious. Chechens on the Cathedral side are holy warriors for Islam.

And the only holy warriors for Christianity that you will find anywhere in the world are fighting on the Russian side.

I don’t understand why you deny the glaringly obvious. There are Christian holy warriors who identify as Christian holy warriors on the Russian side. There are Islamic Jihadis, holy warriors, who identify as holy warriors on the Soros side. No one identifies as a Muslim holy warrior on the Russian side, and still less does anyone anywhere in the world identify as a Christian holy warrior except on the Russian side. It is the first sighting of Christian Holy Warriors since the Napoleonic wars.

Few modern countries have a precisely-defined official religion. Before, countries were Lutheran/Catholic/whatever. Today, it’s more complex.

For example, Israel’s official religion is a mixture of the American religion and Orthodox Judaism. It does not look like an Orthodox Jewish theocracy, or an American-Progressive state. It’s a mixture of the two.

The Russian official religion is a mixture of an American-Progressive state, Orthodox Christianity, with a lot of leftovers from Communism. It looks like a mixture of those three. The Communism elements are fading, and the Orthodox Christian elements are rising.

Moscow definitely favors Orthodox Christianity over other branches of Christianity. For example, their military chaplains are (almost) only Orthodox Christians. Also, each student has to take a class educating them on religion. The parents of the child can choose between three religions – Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Baptist parents are out of luck.

For example, Israel’s official religion is a mixture of the American religion and Orthodox Judaism. It does not look like an Orthodox Jewish theocracy, or an American-Progressive state. It’s a mixture of the two.

I don’t think so. Jewish Orthodoxy in Israel is subordinate to progressivism, much as Christianity and Judaism was subordinate to Islam in the Ottoman empire.

A state always has only one state religion. When it has two, civil war soon ensues.

The Russian official religion is a mixture of an American-Progressive state, Orthodox Christianity, with a lot of leftovers from Communism.

That is true, but it is a transition condition. Either there will be a Russian spring, and progressivism suppresses Russian Orthodoxy the way it suppresses Christianity in the US, or there will be a Russian Orthodox crackdown, and Russian Orthodoxy suppresses progressivism.

In the Crimea, we are unambiguously seeing the Russian Orthodox crackdown.

Russian Orthodox rather like communism – not communism the economic system which they fully agree was disaster that ruined the Russian empire, but communism in that everyone believed in communism. Since today only idiots, such as Obama, believe in communism, they decided to switch to God.

Russia’s official religion is the worship of Russia. Orthodoxy is on the rise, but I get the feeling that nobody in any serious position of power takes it very seriously. From reading the writings of Chechens fighting in the Ukraine for the separatists, I got the impression that they were more nationalist than Islamist in their motivations. Meaning that they would prefer to see Russia lose as a step towards an independent Chechnya, not towards a global Califate. From reading people’s impressions of the Chechens fighting for the Russians, I got the impression that their motivations were similar to that of Caucasian mountaineers in Russian service before the revolution, namely, the opportunity for honor and plunder. I do know that Orthodox Russian nationalist Putin has presided over the development of a massive Chechen/Dagestani/other Muslim mafia in Russia, which acts very similarly to the Mexican mafia in the US.

Students have to take a class to fulfill the religious studies requirement, but they are free to choose between Orthodox, Muslim, Judaic, Buddhist, Secular Ethical and World Religious electives.

You are in denial and delusion to the point of madness. I gave a pile of links to primary sources interviewing holy warriors for Russian Orthodoxy, fighting for russian separatism, and a link to a holy warrior for Islamic Jihad, fighting for George Soros.

And, of course, the link to Putin’s famous 2000 speech, where he introduced the concept of spiritual security – that alien foreign controlled belief systems pose a threat to the security of the Russian state, as, of course, they obviously do.

> Russia’s official religion is the worship of Russia. Orthodoxy is on the rise, but I get the feeling that nobody in any serious position of power takes it very seriously.

I provide links and videos, you provide feelings.

They take official religion at least as seriously as I do, and in Putin’s famous speech gave similar reasons, and are apt to punish those who challenge it, and confiscate the assets of competing claimants to orthodoxy. Jewish and Muslim religious leaders, especially in the Crimea, have to accept the privileged position of the official religion and the subordinate position of other religions, or suffer dire consequences, which consequences in the Crimea include beatings. Alternative claimants to orthodoxy, alternative claimants to official belief, get their property and churches confiscated to be used by the official Russian Orthodox, their leaders arrested never to be seen again.

Religion is a branch of Chimpanzee politics. (Recall my post on Leprechauns). You are playing it for shits and giggles. Putin, Boko Haram, Islamic State, and Harvard, are playing for keepsies.

When the man who plays for shits and giggles goes up against the man who plays for keepsies, the man who plays for shits and giggles is going to lose.

Your idea of taking religions seriously consists of sitting around being holier than thou while waiting for God to do the heavy lifting. By that standard they are not taking religion seriously, because they are not making broad their phylacteries, enlarging the borders of their garments, and installing double dishwashers.

You provide links to Cathedral sources, which don’t seem to really have much in terms of holy war. Lots of Cathedral wailing about Russian religiousity, but not too much of primary sources going “we’re doing this for the One True Faith, Russian Orthodoxy.” Compare with, say, ISIS’ social media presence. And I’m telling you this as a guy who, unlike yourself, can read those primary sources in Russian and Ukrainian.

The fact that the Russians take religion about as seriously as you do is exactly what I’m saying. They don’t take it seriously.

Being a Crimean Tatar leader leads to beatings, not because Crimean Tatars are Muslim (they are no more or less Muslim than Russia’s Chechen thugs,) but because they are nationalist. As for the rest of it, the Eastern Ukraine is in a state of chaos. People get attacked, robbed, etc.

>Your idea of taking religions seriously consists of sitting around being holier than thou while waiting for God to do the heavy lifting.

I live on a hilltop in Samaria and travel around the settlements daily, as do all my neighbors and most of my friends. We risk our lives on a regular basis for what we believe in. Who the fuck are you to tell me I don’t take my religion seriously? What have you put up behind your convictions, assuming you have any? Feel free to giggle about double dishwashers all you like, but first tell me what you’ve personally ante’d up.

The Russian Orthodox Army marches into battle singing battle hymns. On the whole, a lot more convincing as a demonstration of support for the one true faith than you driving around Samaria while in possession of two dishwashers.

The fact that the Russians take religion about as seriously as you do is exactly what I’m saying. They don’t take it seriously.

No one believes in heaven the way they believe in Australia.

I take religion very seriously. I just don’t believe it. But if authority required me to believe in Leprechauns, and to get along with people that it was important to get along with required me to believe in Leprechauns, I would probably believe in leprechauns, though not in the way that I believe in rabbits, but I can see people not being equal, whereas I cannot see leprechauns not existing. Hence, easier to accept an official belief in Leprechauns, than an official belief in equality. If we had a religion that was actually useful, and not apt to stab the husband in the back, I would believe in it every bit as seriously as you believe in Jewish Orthodoxy. Perhaps more seriously, for I am unimpressed by your cheerful willingness to torture the texts of your faith. I don’t think a Jew who really took his religion seriously would have double dishwashers, nor clever rationalizations for women’s rights.

I think most of the people in Russian Orthodox army would be just as happy marching for Marxism as for God, except that Communist Economics can, inconveniently, be seen to be false, while God, like Leprechauns, is harder to disprove.

If you believe in souls, at best, you take the best men in Western Europe and make them babysit red indian savages.

You also see a completely false distinction between humans : niggers :: niggers : salamanders. In reality, a nigger is less civilized than a badger or a beaver. But if there are immortal souls only in the hominid clades, then niggers have souls.

Furthermore, you take your smartest men, and make them calculate how long it’s been since the moment of creation based on the Bible or how if God exists why do bad things happen, or, you know, write and read the Summa Theologica, where they learn about, you know, things and other things.

Sure, belief in racial equality is worse than belief in a watchmaker God who rewards you in the hereafter proportionally to your success in life. But any imposture that makes young White men and women believe that they should be doing anything other than supporting their family and race is more than cruel, it’s going to destroy us.

>On the whole, a lot more convincing as a demonstration of support for the one true faith than you driving around Samaria while in possession of two dishwashers.

I don’t have even one dishwasher.

My neighbors and I live in a place with no fence and 14 families, and the underlying reason is that we believe the place is ours because G-d gave it to us. Going to war is fun and natural for many men. Living in a place like this takes serious faith. Especially when you see your neighbors die or get injured for it.

I should probably also mention that all these people served in the military, most during war, and are still in the reserves, and that their children will also serve, and also probably during war. And that they could all go live somewhere else, for instance, in the US or Canada, and avoid this. Yet they choose not to.

We are neither upright pigs nor talking chimps. We are not ISIS. We do what we do because of faith, not because we want the chimp rush of pillaging, raping and killing. In your model of human existence, which is materialist and postmodernist, this doesn’t compute, any more than a third dimension would compute in a two-dimensional world.

>No one believes in heaven the way they believe in Australia.

The people I live with believe in G-d in the exact same way they believe in Australia, and in a deeper way than, say, you believe in evolution.

> But if authority required me to believe in Leprechauns, and to get along with people that it was important to get along with required me to believe in Leprechauns, I would probably believe in leprechauns, though not in the way that I believe in rabbits

I have no doubt that if necessary you would believe whatever you were supposed to believe in. On this blog, you’ve shown an impressive ability to decide what is convenient for you to believe in, discard any evidence to the contrary and twist words until they meant what you wanted, in a very postmodernist fashion. The people I choose to associate with are a bit different. I suspect that if authority required them to believe in Leprechauns, they would leave, go underground, or whatever it took. Our history supports this.

>Perhaps more seriously, for I am unimpressed by your cheerful willingness to torture the texts of your faith. I don’t think a Jew who really took his religion seriously would have double dishwashers, nor clever rationalizations for women’s rights.

I, on the other hand, am quite impressed with how impressed you are with your own intellect: a cursory reading of a translation of one part of our religion makes you confident that you know exactly what it means and that we all have it wrong.

Due to the unusual path my life has taken, I’ve developed a pretty good ability to judge people’s sanity, intellectual capacity and integrity. It’s not 100%, but pretty good. My assessment is that you are a postmodernist, happily willing to twist the truth to fit an agenda, first of all to yourself. Words mean whatever you want them to mean. I can also see than many, many of the Torah Jews I know are intelligent, open-minded and intellectually honest.

>I think most of the people in Russian Orthodox army would be just as happy marching for Marxism as for God, except that Communist Economics can, inconveniently, be seen to be false, while God, like Leprechauns, is harder to disprove.

Neither is provable or falsifiable. The people in the Russian military and paramilitary units fight for neither. They fight because it’s cool and fun and profitable and more interesting than being plumbers in Norilsk. That’s the professionals. The airborne conscripts fight because the military justice system is not fun.

>If you believe in souls, at best, you take the best men in Western Europe and make them babysit red indian savages.

If you are a materialist, the concept of “best men” is self-contradictory. Best by what standard? Why that standard and not another?

>You also see a completely false distinction between humans : niggers :: niggers : salamanders. In reality, a nigger is less civilized than a badger or a beaver. But if there are immortal souls only in the hominid clades, then niggers have souls.

I’ve served with black men who had intelligence, courage and integrity. I am not sure what claim you have to any of these.

>Furthermore, you take your smartest men, and make them calculate how long it’s been since the moment of creation based on the Bible or how if God exists why do bad things happen, or, you know, write and read the Summa Theologica, where they learn about, you know, things and other things.

Of course. Smart people should spend their time maximizing porn sites’ download speeds and optimizing sausage factory production. Not wasting their time on metaphysics like, you know, Newton and Aristotle.

>But any imposture that makes young White men and women believe that they should be doing anything other than supporting their family and race is more than cruel, it’s going to destroy us.

In a materialistic world, what profit is there in supporting a family or a race? What good does it do you to know that people sharing more genes with you are going to be better off when you’re dead? Greg Cochran recently asked why we don’t see porcupines defending rabbits against hawks-they are close relatives, no?

I’ve developed a pretty good ability to judge people’s sanity, intellectual capacity and integrity. It’s not 100%, but pretty good. My assessment is that you are a postmodernist, happily willing to twist the truth to fit an agenda, first of all to yourself. Words mean whatever you want them to mean. I can also see than many, many of the Torah Jews I know are intelligent, open-minded and intellectually honest.

Yet “Talmudic”, and “Talmudism”, when used pejoratively, refer to the propensity to twist words and meanings to fit an agenda, to read black as meaning white and white as meaning black, just as “pharisaic”, used pejoratively, refers to holier than thou competition. So, my perception of your readings of your sacred texts is not idiosyncratic.

We have had a bunch of arguments over what various sacred texts mean, with you finding female emancipation in the old testament and double dishwashers in the Talmud. Sometimes you had some sort of half plausible case. Most of the time you were just in obstinate denial against the plain meanings of plain words, you were being talmudic in the pejorative sense. Your ever changing Orthodoxy has reconciled itself to ever changing modernity, lagging fifty years or so, which is a bigger lag than any Christian sect gets away with, but still a pretty small lag, a lag nowhere near big enough to allow compatibility with your sacred texts.

Islamic State refer to people who practice religion in this fashion, the Islamic equivalent of Talmudists, as “Professors of Menstruation”, implying that those who torture their holy texts to obtain a predetermined result, do not really take their religion very seriously. I rather think they are correct.

Of course, the Islamic State approach, when applied to the Koran and the Hadith, leads to the entirely unsurprising conclusion that the Koran commands its followers to murder and enslave, because that is, in fact, what is in the Koran and the Hadiths.

The word “Jew” itself has a pejorative connotation in many languages (much like the word “Yankee” in the South.) So what? Why should what the goyim think bother us anymore than it bothers an American that when Mexicans say “gringo”, it is with a tinge of contempt and disdain? The people I am thinking of are true scholars, capable of considering an issue in depth, from many angles at once, bringing in history, biology, linguistics, etc. and intellectually honest. When I follow a discussion in the Talmud, I see the same thing (given that the secular sciences of their time were not on today’s level). So what do I care whether idiots point and giggle?

Naturally, ISIS considers chimping out and cutting off heads much more important than following the letter of the law (which in their case is a muddled and inconsistent copy of our law). Why should we care? We have, after thousands of years of learning our laws and living our lives in our ways, produced a nation which can stand against all the Muslims, who decide which of G-d’s commandments are important and which aren’t in much the same way that you do, based on their own convenience, despite being vastly outnumbered, and outcompete them economically, militarily, socially, etc. Why would we possibly give a shit whether they think the Muslim laws of family purity are more or less important than their laws of conquest?

Naturally, ISIS considers chimping out and cutting off heads much more important than following the letter of the law

Islamic State and Boko Haram are correctly following the letter and spirit of Islamic Law.

Islamic State has a huge team of legal scholars analyzing and applying the Koran and the Haddith to the questions encountered by Islamic State. They don’t despise scholarship. They despise scholarship that tortures the text to get politically acceptable conclusions.

67. The Rabbi: …The Mishnāh was compiled in the year 530, according the era of the ‘Documents,’ which corresponds to the year 150 after the destruction of the Temple, and 530 years after the termination of prophecy. In the Mishnāh were reproduced those sayings and doings which–few out of many–we have quoted. They treated the Mishnāh with the same care as the Tōrāh, arranging it in sections, chapters and paragraphs. Its traditions are so reliable that no suspicion of invention could be upheld. Besides this the Mishnāh contains a large amount of pure Hebrew which is not borrowed from the Bible. It is greatly distinguished by terseness of language, beauty of style, excellence of composition, and the comprehensive employment of homonyms, applied in a lucid way, leaving neither doubt nor obscurity. This is so striking that every one who looks at it with genuine scrutiny must be aware that mortal man is incapable of composing such a work without divine assistance. Only he who is hostile to it, who does not know it, and never endeavoured to read and study it, hearing some general and allegorical utterances of the Sages deems them senseless and defective, just as one who judges a person after meeting him, without having conversed with him for any length of time. The following saying of R. Nahum the Scribe will show how the Sages based their learning on that of the prophets: ‘I have heard from R. Mayyāshā, who learnt from the “pairs,” who had it from the prophets as an ordination given to Moses from Sinai.’ They were careful not to hand down the teachings of single individuals, as is shown by the following saying uttered on the deathbed of one of them, to his son: ‘My son, retract thy opinion on four subjects which I have taught thee.’ ‘Wherefore,’ asked the son, ‘didst thou not retract thine?’ ‘I learnt,’ answered the father, ‘from many who, in their turn, had learnt from many. I kept to my tradition, and they to theirs. Thou, however, didst learn only from one person. It is better to neglect the teachings of a single individual, and to accept that of the majority.’ These are a few sayings, like a drop from the sea, showing the excellence of the traditions of the Mishnāh. To give thee a sketch of the traditions and traditionists of the Talmud, and its methods, sentences and aphorisms, would lead us too far. And if there is in it many a thing which is considered less attractive to-day, it was yet held proper in those days.

68. Al Khazari: Indeed, several details in their sayings appear to me inferior to their general principles. They employ verses of the Tōrāh in a manner without regard to common sense. One can only say that the application of such verses once for legal deductions, another time for homiletic purposes, does not tally with their real meaning. Their Agadās and tales are often against reason.

69. The Rabbi: Didst thou notice how strictly and minutely the comments on the Mishnāh and Boraithā are given? They speak with a thoroughness and lucidity which do equal justice both to the words and meaning of them.

70. Al Khazari: I am well aware to what perfection they brought the art of dialectics, but this is an argument which cannot be refuted.

71. The Rabbi: May we assume that he who proceeds with so much thoroughness should not know as much of the contents of a verse as we know?

72. Al Khazari: This is most unlikely. Two cases are possible. Either we are ignorant of their method of interpreting the Tōrāh, or the interpreters of the Rabbinic law are not identical with those of the Holy Writ. The latter point of view is absurd. It is seldom that we see them give a verse a rational and literal rendition, but, on the other hand, we never find them interpret a halākhā except on the lines of strict logic.

73. The Rabbi: Let us rather assume two other possibilities. Either they employ secret methods of interpretation which we are unable to discern, and which were handed down to them, together with the method of the ‘Thirteen Rules of Interpretation,’ or they use Biblical verses as a kind of fulcrum of interpretation in a method called Asmakhtā, and make them a sort of hall mark of tradition. An instance is given in the following verse: ‘And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat’ (Gen. ii. 16 sq.). It forms the basis of the ‘seven Noahide laws’ in the following manner:

[‘He] commanded’ refers to jurisdiction.
‘The Lord’ refers to prohibition of blasphemy.
‘God’ refers to prohibition of idolatry.
‘The man’ refers to prohibition of murder.
‘Saying’ refers to prohibition of incest.
‘Of every tree of the garden,’ prohibition of rape.
‘Thou mayest surely eat,’ a prohibition of flesh from the living animal.
There is a wide difference between these injunctions and the verse. The people, however, accepted these seven laws as tradition, connecting them with the verse as aid to memory. It is also possible that they applied both methods of interpreting verses, or others which are now lost to us

Obvious truths are seldom new. Al Khazari is quite obviously correct, and as more time passes, resulting in more adjustments of Jewish practice, becomes more obviously correct, double dishwashers being the most recent demonstration.

Spend 3000 years jewing everyone, don’t act so surprised when people start to simply call you Jews.

Newton wanted to know how long the world had existed. A reasonable question. He was stuck with a singularly garbage metaphysics because one favorite thing for snowniggers to do is sabotage each other and themselves over various millennial cults promising personal immortality. To their credit, the first cult that really started to induce treason among Jews is progressivism, which only promises personal immortality through Obamacare and the singularity.

Well, it would take until Lemaitre and Hubble to get some good calculations on how long the universe has existed. Whether it could have happened sooner is the question of how necessary the Christian dark ages were.

Of course. They are such great scholars that they know that tombs are haram. As are ancient cities and sculptures. They are so learned and principled that they are holier than all the Muslims who preceded them.

Except when it comes to a tomb owned by the Turks, their patrons. All of a sudden, there is an exception. Oops.

It is clearly correct to interpret Islam as calling for the destruction of images of Gods, supernatural beings, deified rulers, and rulers who have been the subject of personality cults – which tend to be most of the contents of most museums of ancient art.

Since Mohammed is supposedly the final prophet, it is reasonable for Muslims to destroy the tombs of saints who show suspicious signs of deification.

The destruction of all images indiscriminately is extreme, but not a wholly indefensible interpretation of Islam.

yes, it is different to argue with a column of Turkish tanks over the destruction of a monument. ISIS did a great job of capturing left behind American tanks driven by Iraqi conscripts. They were going to take Baghdad and redraw the map of Iraq until they decided to fight the Kurds for no reason. They never stood a chance against a real army and they know it.

Now, in order to stay relevant, they need to pull these cartoon villain capers.

ISIS studiously avoids antagonizing Israel, but they were perfectly willing to antagonize Turkey.

Kuzari/Al-Khazari’s argument is that the Sages say stuff means it doesn’t plainly mean. The Rabbi replies that we can see in other places the Sages use logic very rigorously, and that they are experts in the Hebrew language and its various nuances, so obviously they are trustworthy-they either have a trustworthy tradition telling them how to interpret the plain text, or are using the plain text as a hook upon which to hang the law which they know by tradition. Kuzari accepts this answer.

As for ISIS-when it suits them, they are irreconcilable purists, with a burning faith in G-d and Mohammed, especially those of their teachings which involve an excuse to kill, rape, enslave and destroy. When it suits them, they make compromises. You know, tombs are haram and must be destroyed…except those tombs which you can get your ass kicked for destroying. Chimps, like I said, and they will collapse if they can’t expand. And they can’t expand except to Jordan or Saudi, both of which are doubtful. This isn’t really what I consider a religion which stands on its own two, but more of a viral outbreak.

The trouble is that not all the ancient traditions hanging on those hooks look all that ancient. And as time goes by, you are getting more ancient traditions that do not look very ancient.

Islamic State does not say that all tombs are haram and must be destroyed. Some must be respected. Depends on the deification of the occupant. So saints’ tombs get destroyed, tombs of military heroes should be OK, even if they fought on what Islamic State says is the wrong side.

I know, I know, in school the nice ladies taught us that religion is illogical gibberish and superstition for stupid uncool losers. I mean, if you choose to believe this gibberish, that’s totally your choice, you know?

Of course, we were also taught all kinds of other stuff which then turned out to be total bullshit, believing which would wreck your life in all kinds of ways.

Islamic State interprets the Koran and the Hadith to mean what they say and say what they mean, and I interpret the Koran and the Hadith as meaning what they say and saying what they mean.

Further, the major problem with Islam is that from time to time some random Muslim interprets the Koran and the Hadith as meaning what they say and saying what they mean, and consequently suddenly go off and kills some people.

If you think that Islam can really be the religion of peace, you are agreeing with the progressives, that any religion can be anything, which rapidly leads to the conclusion that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism..

There are reasonable developments in religious laws that extend old laws to new situations, like how you’re not allowed to light fires on saturday, which means you can’t type with a mechanical keyboard, but you can poke at an on-screen keyboard. Then, there are rules that are obviously the result of holiness competition, like installing two dishwashers so that Satan won’t manifest himself inside your dishwasher and taste a forbidden flavor on your soap. And then there’s extending the rule about not humiliating people for no reason to letting openly gay people act like G-d never said anything against faggotry.

But if you have to believe in G-d, then you have to believe that all of this is reasonable and really the same thing. And while G-d can’t tell cannons to accept bigger loads without exploding, G-d can tell the Holy League to put aside their differences and defeat a materially superior Turkish fleet, so, you should at least try to act like you believe in G-d.

>Islamic State interprets the Koran and the Hadith to mean what they say and say what they mean, and I interpret the Koran and the Hadith as meaning what they say and saying what they mean.

As I’ve said, you are now also an Islamic scholar. When ISIS has a different interpretation from you, I am surprised they don’t dial you up for a clarification.

The reality is that the Koran is very difficult to understand. It uses obscure language, contradicts itself and speaks in strange parables. The impossibility of using its plain text as a guide to daily operations is the reason the Hadiths were written down, with the idea that Muslims could understand what Muhammad meant by what he did. Even this was difficult to use as an SOP, so Islamic jurisprudence, fiqh, developed, with its major schools. ISIS does not, to my knowledge, have a problem with this framework (which was copied from us more or less wholesale.) It is a Salafi movement, meaning, a progressive one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement#Tenets) but it has not gone so far as to say that any asshole can pull out a copy of Bukhari and determine what the Sharia is for a particular situation. They apparently use Bin Baz, from the Hanbali fiqh, as a religious authority.

>Further, the major problem with Islam is that from time to time some random Muslim interprets the Koran and the Hadith as meaning what they say and saying what they mean, and consequently suddenly go off and kills some people.

The main problem with Islam is that it’s untrue, based on a madman’s hallucinations, and built to appeal to the worst instincts in man. They do have the advantage of being monotheists, which gives them a certain strength and cohesion, which frequently makes the results of their actions worse.

>If you think that Islam can really be the religion of peace, you are agreeing with the progressives, that any religion can be anything, which rapidly leads to the conclusion that all religions, rightly understood, are progressivism..

This is a strawman. When did I say Islam can be a religion of peace?

I actually think the idea of a “religion of peace” is phenomenally stupid. Any religion worthy of the name has to deal with all aspects of the human condition, including war and peace. Otherwise, it’s not a religion but a bumper sticker. Attempts to build an actual religion of peace resulted in the Shakers.

>There are reasonable developments in religious laws that extend old laws to new situations, like how you’re not allowed to light fires on saturday, which means you can’t type with a mechanical keyboard, but you can poke at an on-screen keyboard.

Rabbi, is this your ruling? It’s very novel.

>Then, there are rules that are obviously the result of holiness competition, like installing two dishwashers so that Satan won’t manifest himself inside your dishwasher and taste a forbidden flavor on your soap. And then there’s extending the rule about not humiliating people for no reason to letting openly gay people act like G-d never said anything against faggotry.

I am not sure in which religion you see these things. We don’t particularly believe in Satan as an independent entity. We do believe that we have a What G-d said about homosexuality was what he said about dishonest business dealings, yet we don’t publically humiliate those whom we privately suspect of having rigged scales, and we don’t humiliate their children.

I don’t understand this strange obsession with dishwashers you two have. Two of the major halakhic authorities of the 20th century, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Ashkenazi) and Rav Ovadia Yosef (Sepharadi) ruled that it is permissible to use one dishwasher if it is difficult to have two. Others say that it is preferable to have two. Nobody says, for instance, that a dairy dish washed in a dishwasher which is also used for meat dishes is not kosher. It’s a matter of preference, stringency vs. leniency, and is presented as such. What do you care how we wash our dishes?

>And while G-d can’t tell cannons to accept bigger loads without exploding, G-d can tell the Holy League to put aside their differences and defeat a materially superior Turkish fleet, so, you should at least try to act like you believe in G-d.

>Islamic State interprets the Koran and the Hadith to mean what they say and say what they mean, and I interpret the Koran and the Hadith as meaning what they say and saying what they mean.

As I’ve said, you are now also an Islamic scholar. When ISIS has a different interpretation from you, I am surprised they don’t dial you up for a clarificatio

Whenever Islamic State makes the news, they seem to be interpreting the Koran exactly as I do. Funny thing that.

Could it be that the Koran and the Hadith is not hard to interpret at all?

That what is hard is to torture the text to get the desired predetermined conclusions.

In the old testament you have an accretion of inconsistent laws and precedents, as one King or High Priest made one decision under one set of circumstances, and a different King or High Priest made a different and inconsistent decision under different circumstances, but the Koran was written by a single mind and single hand, and when he changed his mind, he announced he was changing his mind and the old precedent or the old law no longer applied.

The Hadiths threatened to become an ever growing pile of ever increasing inconsistencies in the same way that the Talmud grew cancerously, but they shut the Hadith down before it could grow so large as to get entirely out of hand the way the Talmud has.

>Could it be that the Koran and the Hadith is not hard to interpret at all?

Then why do they quote Bin Baz, an Islamic scholar from an established school of fiqh, for their rulings? I mean, if it were so self-evident…

>In the old testament you have an accretion of inconsistent laws and precedents, as one King or High Priest made one decision under one set of circumstances, and a different King or High Priest made a different and inconsistent decision under different circumstances

As usual, you are making things up and hoping nobody will call you on it.

Please bring some examples. Which King or High Priest established new laws? In fact, where does it even say that a King or High Priest has this power?

>but the Koran was written by a single mind and single hand, and when he changed his mind, he announced he was changing his mind and the old precedent or the old law no longer applied.

I recommend you find some Islamic practice which is commonly accepted and then trace its derivation from the Koran. Let’s start with women covering their hair. What does it say in the Koran which is so straightforward? They shall beat their khumurs against their bags?

>The Hadiths threatened to become an ever growing pile of ever increasing inconsistencies in the same way that the Talmud grew cancerously, but they shut the Hadith down before it could grow so large as to get entirely out of hand the way the Talmud has.

As usual, you have no grasp of the basic concepts. The Hadiths are not analogous to the Talmud. The Hadiths are analogous to Midrashim (somewhat.) Fiqh is analogous to the Talmud, meaning, a body of jurisprudence. And fiqh continues to this day, with no interruption, multiple schools which recognize each others’ legitimacy, etc.

>Because it is silly, recent, and holier than thou in the same way that enlarging your phylacteries was silly, ancient, and holier than thou.

Dishwashers are recent themselves. What do you want, the Talmud to include a manual for your Prius as well? People follow different rulings. In any case, there is no attempt, contrary to your assertions, to claim that the most stringent opinion is the only one out there, or that this is the way it’s always been. Both sides are familiar with the other’s sources and reasoning, and make a good-faith effort to figure out what the law should be. Neither is claiming, for instance, that those who follow the other’s opinion are heretics:http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5221http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/01/dishwashers-and-kashrut/
Where you insist on seeing people attempting to be holier-than, I see people using a straightforward and honest methodology, quoting a series of sources accurately, looking at an issue from different aspects, and treating the other side respectfully to figure out what the right thing to do is. If you see the prohibition on cooking meat and milk together as Bronze Age superstition, that’s your problem, but where do you get off mocking people who take their foundational documents seriously making a good-faith effort to understand how to apply them to today’s reality?

>Could it be that the Koran and the Hadith is not hard to interpret at all?

Then why do they quote Bin Baz, an Islamic scholar from an established school of fiqh, for their rulings? I mean, if it were so self-evident…

They call the people who point out the obvious “scholars”, in order to refute those who call those who deny the obvious “scholars” – which latter scholars Islamic State calls “Professors of Menstruation” to ridicule their purported learning and authority.

>In the old testament you have an accretion of inconsistent laws and precedents, as one King or High Priest made one decision under one set of circumstances, and a different King or High Priest made a different and inconsistent decision under different circumstances

As usual, you are making things up and hoping nobody will call you on it.

Please bring some examples. Which King or High Priest established new laws? In fact, where does it even say that a King or High Priest has this power?

Jews are always making up new laws, which is why Jesus ridiculed phylacteries and I ridicule double dishwashers, and everyone ridicules the latest line that you have to be nice to openly gay couples.

We have already discussed this extensively. For example Moses forbids work on the sabbath. Then, much later, a high priest sets a guard on the city gates to catch people transporting wagon loads of fish into Jerusalem on the Sabbath – thereby quite inadvertently making a distinction between work that crosses a domain boundary, and work that does not, though probably his only consideration was that the gate was a good place to catch obvious violations, and a wagon at the city gates probably has a simpler story, is more straightforwardly and uncomplicatedly illegal, than a wagon somewhere inside the city.

Then in the Talmud this business of domain boundaries gets elaborated and elaborated and elaborated, a gigantic mountain of brand new laws with only the faintest basis in the Old Testament, a mere shadow of a hook to hang them on, until, in due course, twentieth century rabbis forbid women to carry their babies through the door because a high priest arrested people transporting wagonloads of fish millenia ago.

The high priest, by arresting people at the city gates and not everywhere and anywhere, was inadvertently and unintentionally making a law that boundaries mattered in the definition of work on the sabbath, he was making new law, for precedent is new law. Which entirely inadvertent new law proceeded to grow like cancer as rabbis competed each to be holier than the other.

I recommend you find some Islamic practice which is commonly accepted and then trace its derivation from the Koran. Let’s start with women covering their hair. What does it say in the Koran which is so straightforward?

Muhammed encountered Zaynab, a married women, unveiled. Hits on her. She urges her husband to divorce her so she can marry Mohammed. Husband does so. Mohamed marries her, then immediately issues a law against unveiled women.

Veiling necessary, since divorce so easy. His law requiring veils Surah 24:31, says that the head covering should go all the way down to the boobs, from which we may conclude he got to partially see Zaynab’s boobs.

I see several different translations of Surah 24:31, all of which say exactly the same thing.

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands’ fathers, or their sons or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment.

Which I read as the standard Islamic bag over the head, plus a ban on making boobs jiggle. (Implying that Zaynab jiggled her partially covered boobs at Mohammed)

Now some people interpret this as allowing the face, and there are two contradictory hadiths, one of which says cover the face, and the other says that a woman can show her face. But since a veil is a head cover, and the head cover has to go all the way down, pretty big stretch to allow face.

>Jews are always making up new laws, which is why Jesus ridiculed phylacteries and I ridicule double dishwashers,

You ridicule double dishwashers because you are ignorant (and seem to have the idea that phylacteries are something that was invented in Jesus’ time.)

>and everyone ridicules the latest line that you have to be nice to openly gay couples.

I don’t know who this “everyone” is.

>For example Moses forbids work on the sabbath. Then, much later, a high priest sets a guard on the city gates to catch people transporting wagon loads of fish into Jerusalem on the Sabbath – thereby quite inadvertently making a distinction between work that crosses a domain boundary, and work that does not, though probably his only consideration was that the gate was a good place to catch obvious violations, and a wagon at the city gates probably has a simpler story, is more straightforwardly and uncomplicatedly illegal, than a wagon somewhere inside the city.

This is pure and unadulterated gibberish. Right away you betray basic ignorance of the subject matter.

>Muhammed encountered Zaynab, a married women, unveiled. Hits on her. She urges her husband to divorce her so she can marry Mohammed. Husband does so. Mohamed marries her, then immediately issues a law against unveiled women.

This is not in the Koran. It’s in a hadith. And how this hadith applies to daily behavior, who must be veiled how, is the subject of jurisprudence.

>I see several different translations of Surah 24:31, all of which say exactly the same thing.

All of which are not interpreting the plain meaning of the sura, which is gibberish, but are interpreting it purely in light of tradition.

I notice you are dancing hard around the question of why ISIS feels compelled to base their edicts on the writings of Bin Baz, a 20th century Hanbali mufti, rather than just saying “this is plainly obvious from the Koran” as you would prefer they do. The answer, of course, is that very few practical things are plainly obvious from the Koran, which is written in a language that is unintelligible except in the light of tradition, exegesis and jurisprudence.

>Jews are always making up new laws, which is why Jesus ridiculed phylacteries and I ridicule double dishwashers,

You ridicule double dishwashers because you are ignorant (and seem to have the idea that phylacteries are something that was invented in Jesus’ time.)

Phylacteries were growing larger in the time of Jesus, and their current size and shape is still ridiculous, even if they have been stable at their current ridiculous size and shape for a long time.

As for double dishwashers, the meaning of the Talmud is plain enough – those who wrote the Talmud were not using double kitchen sinks, nor were quite recent Jewish scholars.

>I see several different translations of Surah 24:31, all of which say exactly the same thing.

All of which are not interpreting the plain meaning of the sura, which is gibberish, but are interpreting it purely in light of tradition.

Speak ancient arabic do you? Various people, some of them not at all sympathetic to Islam, translate Surah 24:31 in almost exactly the same way – as plain and straightforward words with plain and straightforward meaning. Further, people who believe the veil should cover the face translate it the same way as people who rationalize that the veil need not cover the face, so they are not paraphrasing in accord with their tradition, they are translating what they read in front of them, for their translation casts doubt on their tradition.

I notice you are dancing hard around the question of why ISIS feels compelled to base their edicts on the writings of Bin Baz, a 20th century Hanbali mufti,

I am not dancing around it I gave you a straight answer the first time, and I give you a the same straight answer the second time.

They use Bin Baz to appease people like yourself who claim that any religion can be given any meaning. Kind of like Wikipedia edit wars. Someone ignores primary sources and insists on secondary sources, so, to appease them, you find some obscure secondary source that speaks plainly about the primary source.

>Phylacteries were growing larger in the time of Jesus, and their current size and shape is still ridiculous, even if they have been stable at their current ridiculous size and shape for a long time.

I would like to see a source for the contention that tefillin in Jesus’ time were inordinately large. Archaeological or otherwise. For a goy to explain to us what size our tefillin should be is a bit out of line, don’t you think?

>As for double dishwashers, the meaning of the Talmud is plain enough – those who wrote the Talmud were not using double kitchen sinks, nor were quite recent Jewish scholars.

They weren’t using any kind of kitchen sinks, since sinks no more existed than did dishwashers in those days. They would either scour their utensils or boil them in some sort of pot.

The Shulchan Aruch, whom you quoted, was discussing this sort of situation, and one where there was no actual food but only residue. He thought this was ok. But he had authoritative contemporaries who disagreed. And it’s unclear whether today’s dishwasher is the same thing. Actual pieces of food, as opposed to residue, frequently inhabit the bottom of a dishwasher. So there is disagreement there. The bottom line is that just as during Rav Yosef Karo’s time, there were those who thought that using a large dairy vessel to boil meat dishes was ok if you used ashes or something of the sort, and there were those who thought it was not ok, today there are both authoritative Sepharadim and Ashkenazim on both sides of the issue. This is hardly an example of progressive holiness, but a question of how to apply an old law to a new situation.

>Speak ancient arabic do you? Various people, some of them not at all sympathetic to Islam, translate Surah 24:31 in almost exactly the same way – as plain and straightforward words with plain and straightforward meaning. Further, people who believe the veil should cover the face translate it the same way as people who rationalize that the veil need not cover the face, so they are not paraphrasing in accord with their tradition, they are translating what they read in front of them, for their translation casts doubt on their tradition.

They are all interpreting it in accordance with the traditions we have today, which is that Muslim women wear a veil. But if you look at the source text, it is only understandable in light of these traditions. If you remove those traditions, everything is up for grabs. For instance, Luxenberg says a lot of the words are actually Aramaic and not Arabic at all, drastically changing the original meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran

Since the Koran is written in a Semitic abjad with no vowel markings, and since in Semitic languages the meaning of a word changes based on the vowels which are not typically written (even assuming that the whole thing is in Arabic instead of having Aramaic vocabulary, which has different meanings for the same words,) of course its reading is purely based on tradition. The same is the case for the Torah, by the way.

>They use Bin Baz to appease people like yourself who claim that any religion can be given any meaning. Kind of like Wikipedia edit wars. Someone ignores primary sources and insists on secondary sources, so, to appease them, you find some obscure secondary source that speaks plainly about the primary source.

Yes, there are lots of people like myself in Rakka, and they are a primary concern of ISIS’. Bib Baz, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, is just some obscure guy. And in order to appease the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq (and Algeria and the rest of the scum), it is very logical to use a Saudi mufti.

Or perhaps it is as I said: Islam is not just a founding document but rather a set of traditions, some of them mutually compatible, and ISIS follows a variant of one of those traditions.

Incidentally, you are the one claiming that any religion can be given any meaning. I am arguing the opposite.

For a goy to explain to us what size our tefillin should be is a bit out of line, don’t you think?

The underlying theory of the tefillin is that one literally has holy verses on one’s head, as a symbol of having them metaphorically on one’s head. This can be done with something far less conspicuous. Doing it in an unnecessarily conspicuous way is, as Jesus sarcastically observed, being holier than thou.

If priests on top, and open entry into the priesthood, holiness spiral ensues. How bad the spiral gets depends on how much power and privilege the priests have. If not much power, problem will be self limited by the tendency of congregations to depart from excessively holy leadership, which is the current equilibrium condition of those subordinate religions that the Cathedral tolerates, tolerates so long as they continue to make progress towards progressivism, since all religions, rightly understood, are supposedly progressivism.

But the more state power the priests have and more state backing the priests receive, the worse the problem of holiness spirals. If Judaism in Israel gradually gets more state backing, gradually becomes more of an official religion (your scenario) it will gradually become more obnoxious, and people, including its most sincere adherents, will gradually become more alarmed by the prospect of it obtaining state power. If it takes power in something like a coup (my scenario), then unless the coupists do something about open entry and do something to roll back the existing excessive holiness (ban double dishwashers and cap the size of terfillin), it is going to go into a full on holiness spiral, and, just as all malignant metastatic aneuploid cancers look alike regardless of tissue of origin, end up as something remarkably similar to progressivism, even as it proclaims holy war on progressivism over differences ever more minute.

But if you look at the source text, it is only understandable in light of these traditions. I

Bunkum.

And how do I know this is bunkum? Because different actually existent peoples claiming to be Muslim have different traditions, and still translate it in the exact same way, as plain words with a plain meaning, even when their traditions are such that it casts doubt on their traditions. Text torture is, for the most part, done after translation, not before translation, implying that the original text is plain enough to resist text torture – which is mighty plain indeed.

Since the Koran is written in a Semitic abjad with no vowel markings, and since in Semitic languages the meaning of a word changes based on the vowels which are not typically written (even assuming that the whole thing is in Arabic instead of having Aramaic vocabulary, which has different meanings for the same words,) of course its reading is purely based on tradition. The same is the case for the Torah, by the way.

The Koran is verbose, probably to compensate for the lack of vowels, much as Chinese tends to be flowery, to compensate for the excessive grammatical flexibility, which also leads to potential ambiguity. Because of the verbosity, you are unlikely to get more than one possible set of vowels making sense in context.

And proof of this is that no one has proposed an alternative set of vowel choices or language choices for Surah 24:31 that makes the slightest sense.

There are a whole lot of branches of Islam that would like to make that Surah go away. How come they have not come up with an alternative translation that it is about flea removal and dog care?

By playing games with vowels, by making alternative choices of vowels, or alternative choices of language, you can render it as nonsensical gibberish, but you cannot render it as a meaningful and reasonable statement, except by the vowel and language choices that everyone does choose in order to render it a meaningful and reasonable statement.

Yes, there are lots of people like myself in Rakka, and they are a primary concern of ISIS’

There are lots of guys exactly like yourself in Islam, in that they claim that if high authority reads black as white, then black means white, and if high authority discovers an ancient tradition that was never practiced until today, it is nonetheless an ancient tradition.

And these high authorities have a marked tendency to discover ancient traditions that reduce the conflict between their religion and progressivism, as, for example, the latest discovery about openly gay couples.

that’s easy. Only levites of exceptional genetic purity can be priests. When a debate arises, it is settled in favor of the levite with the purer genome. The most pure-bred levite, whose parents claim he’s autistic while carefully covering his forehead with a variety of funny hats, is the chief priest, and his privilege is to cook the rabbits.

the great thing about judaism is that the scriptures command that everything be done, so everyone can say that what they want to do is commanded.

“The reason George Soros supported the Nazis is because he doesn’t give a shit about Jews, but he does care about Socialism”

This was actually written.

People who call themselves the “authentic right” actually believe it.

These must truly be the end times!

Keep on insisting on the maintanence of your false dichotomy, and keep on attacking strawmen after strawmen while refusing to acknowledge that which I demonstrated irrefutably about the nature of Putin, Dugin, and the ideologies animating them.

You do us both a favor. The more honest you guys are about your dishonesty, the more quickly people who care about preserving white people and European civilization, rather than what is literally just kneejerk contrarianism (“reaction”) will realize that NRx is a sinkhole of faggotry.

“The reason George Soros supports Nazis in the Ukraine…” What? Does the German National-Socialist Party (dissolved in 1945) has an active branch in Ukraine 2015? Soros, a Hungarian Holocaust bona-fide survivor, supports the Nazis? Words have meanings, except in this blog where it is all a lunatic confusion. A meaningless confusion.

I am tying to make sense of what Jim is saying above. Soros, you say, got beaten up by the Nazis and reacted by becoming a Nazi and a Jew-hater. Well, Jew-hater he is not. Like many other Budapest Jews of his generation, he aspires be a generic (cosmopolitan?) European and live free of the stigma of Judaism. It is a rational aspiration, although my family thinks it is illusionary, it is impossible to shed one’s Jewish origins. Fact is that Soros had not even the remotest contact with Judaism or Israel ever, yet he is considered (even by you) as the very paradigm of a Jew. And Nazi he is not, not as a member of the Nazi party nor suscribing to Nazi ideology, which by the way, what it is? I have read extensively their literature in the original, and the Nazi program was to recover the territories lost in WWI, stop the payment of reparations, rebuild German economy and the Wehrmacht. Which they fully succeeded in achieving. How can Soros fit into this program? True, as WWII advanced, the Nazis lost their mind and started to believe that they were a superior race and their mission was to exterminate inferior races such as Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians and God knows where would they have stopped if not defeated by Stalin. Now, once more, how can Soros fit into this variation of the Nazi program? In what sense you think he is a racist and works to kill off the non-Germanic peoples of this planet? Considering his activities, he is more preoccupied with amassing more billions and to propagate his economic philosophy (which is not Communism nor Nazism but a derivation of Karl Popper’s “Open Society”)

I am tying to make sense of what Jim is saying above. Soros, you say, got beaten up by the Nazis and reacted by becoming a Nazi and a Jew-hater. Well, Jew-hater he is not. Like many other Budapest Jews of his generation, he aspires be a generic (cosmopolitan?) European and live free of the stigma of Judaism.

Imagine a good white progressive in Amerca. Since he “knows” that a black area is just as safe, indeed safer, than a working class white area he goes for a little stroll in Oakland. Eight blacks beat him up with jack handles, breaking numerous bones, calling him various insulting names for white person. What is he going to do?
Why, he is going to make an effort to live life free from the stigma of being white.

What would you call a good progressive trying to live life free from the stigma of being white? What would you call all those good progressives at Duke University?

In what sense you think he is a racist and works to kill off the non-Germanic peoples of this planet?

George Soros is in favor of the eradication of the Jews of Israel and the white race.

That’s a very important comment. Progressivism offered Jews the chance to melt away as citizens of the world, and, thus, managed to induce treason. The only realistic options are B’s nationalism, and, depending on what genetic research will say in the future, some more active way of turning into Whites. Which may end up in the same place.

Soros is always called an evil Jew rat because he made money on shady transactions and uses it to promote degeneracy. It is perhaps an ironic accident that he does these things because he is a progressive. But could he, and would he, do these things if he wasn’t a Jew?

Isaac Asimov was actually very intelligent, and completely convinced by progressivism even while writing about things and other things. He was perhaps the last person to die of AIDS from a blood transfusion.

I recommend Anthony Sutton’s books on Wall Street and the rise of the Communists and Nazis. The vast, vast majority of the bankers involved were not Jewish. Soros is merely taking a page out of their book.

it’s not really that hard to understand, the Nazis in the Ukraine were used, and are now puppets if they didn’t start out that way. George Soros is too busy doing global leadership things to care what his puppets call themselves.

Some people who feel an ideological connection to the original Nazis were confused in the beginning, but it was pretty quickly exposed that the Nazi in the Ukraine were paid by Jews and were fighting for the Cathedral.

The list is idiotic. What about the millions of Jews in Israel and elsewhere who dont even speak English and couldnt care less about immigration issues of faraway countries? Are Jews with kippah patrolling the Arizona desert helping Guatemalans to cross the border to the USA? or are they White Baptists?

To start a serious debate, we should define the meaning of the words used and establish a common language. Without it, all this logorrhea is meaningless. For example, who is a Jew? To give you an idea of what I am saying: Hungarian sites that make lists of Jews including people like Angela Merkel, so I cant even call them antisemites. They have not even one person observing the Jewish religion, not one rabbi or anyone member of a synagogue of following Jewish dietary rules of kashrut, or any other indicators of Judaism. For me George Soros is what he say he is: a Hungarian economist born to Jewish grand-parents he never knew (has parents already had converted and changed their names) but having or wishing absolutely no contact or relation with Jews. Is Soros in favour of the erradication of the White race as you write? Are you serious? Are you sober?

Religious Jews don’t cause problems to anything like the extent that Jewish conversos to progressivism cause problems and Jewish heretics that splintered to communism cause problems.

Chan/pol is correct that whenever you find someone preaching decadence he is usually a Jew – but if he is a Jew, he is a converso. Obviously Orthodox Religious Jews seldom preach decadence.

Peppermint suspects the existence of a large number of Jews who nominally convert to progressivism, while secretly continuing to practice Judaism, preaching decadence for others but not practicing it themselves. Probably true, but progressivism is very good at turning hypocrisy into sincerity. I would expect the children of such Jews to be sincere conversos and to intermarry with non Jewish progressives.

Is Soros in favour of the erradication of the White race as you write?

Sure. Some Nazis think he is in favor of the eradication of the white race but the continuation of the Jewish race, which logically follows from Nazi theory, but obviously they are wrong, and most Nazis realize that they are wrong. Soros does not want Jews to continue to exist either.

This disconfirms the Nazi theory that Jews want to eradicate the white race for the benefit of the Jewish race. Similarly the failure to accept Jewish refugees from Nazism disconfirms the Nazi theory that Jews have mystic mind control powers that cause the white race to persistently do stupid self destructive things.

Nazis believe that if it was not for Jews whites would not war on each other. In reality the reason whites are so very good at war is that whites have been practicing on each other for a very long time.

Nonetheless, it is obviously true that regardless of how wrong chan/pol is on these beliefs, it is pretty accurate when it complains about overwhelming Jewish overrepresentation among the advocates of decadence and evil.

Peppermint’s theory has the Jews circulating the poison to others, but not drinking it themselves. In practice, however, they drink more of it than anyone.

Communism is a Jewish heresy, progressivism a christian heresy. Communist Jews are therefore heretics, progressive Jews are therefore conversos. However, communism and progressivism are merging.